Registry Detail

1870

Information

24 November 2003

2003 quest. - Summary of Concepts Paper responses

The Concepts Paper, available at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/docs/r1764_conceptspaper.pdf, was part of the set of four documents comprising the second questionnaire on ISIC and CPC revision. Input was solicited on the stated concepts.

Summary for responses to the Concepts Paper Since most issues have been addressed in the questionnaire document, there are only few (however often extensive) comments on the concepts papers such. 1) ILO suggests a more extensive elaboration of the driving factors for the revision, their mutual relationship and possible trade-offs. Also, those factors should be discussed at the detailed level of the classification. 2) ABS/NZ oppose the widening of the scope of ISIC to all economic functions, citing difficulties in applying and using a mix of concepts. While the need for more clarity on e.g. trust funds is recognized, no proposal is presented. 3) ABS/NZ suggests changing the reference to establishments and enterprises etc. in para. 13 and 15 to "production units" [RB: even SNA is not consistent with this term]. 4) ABS/NZ opposes the double-coding proposal for ancillary units, citing that otherwise recording of secondary output activity codes would be a logical necessity. OECD on the other hand supports the double-coding proposal. ILO even suggests to use a double-coding option for all mixed activities, citing reasons for possible useful applications. 5) ILO suggest that the classification allow for the separation of all "service" activities from "non-service" activities, which could be used as a basis for an alternate aggregation reflecting both parts. 6) ILO suggests more guidelines on how to develop the necessary data collection and coding tools for different types of informants as well as for different contexts. 7) OECD suggests more guidance on the choice of statistical units, as this will have a strong impact on data comparability. Assistance from the Round Table on Business Frames could be sought. 8) ABS/NZ provides a text from the ANZSIC principles statement to improve the text in para. 29-32 on principles for grouping. 9) ABS/NZ points out difficulties in applying concepts or principles only to a part of the classification and suggests clearer statements for this and description of follow-up procedures. 10) US proposes to consider a move form an activity classification to a classification of establishments, as the production function approach is based on the processes of establishments. 11) US suggests loosening the link between activities and products. The industry classification should be used to classify establishments and a product classification should be used to classify the outputs of establishments. With both industry and product systems based on the same concept, the power to view structural changes in the economy is lost. [This is related to the activity-product link discussed for the aggregation structure of the CPC, but also for the actual definition of categories in ISIC based on processes, not products.] Also, some editorial comments, i.e. suggestions for clarification, are made for individual paragraphs. UK also provides an argument on headquarters, which seems to be based on a misinterpretation of para. 9 of the concepts paper. Action suggested: - Review suggestions for editorial changes (1, 3, 8) - Consider explanatory texts (chapters) for the ISIC users guide (6, 7) - Review expansion concept of ISIC (what do we want to cover?, is the current proposal in its extent necessary?) (2) - Restate our position (4, 9) - Consider during future detailed work (5) Not sure if we can do something for 10 and 11.